I think there's actually truth to the Swedish ad - taxation is precisely the condition for the creation of these large, well-maintained public spaces. Where I think we go wrong is attributing positive value to such public spaces as if a) without them, there would be no well-maintained spaces, and b) that these public spaces represent the actually most highly valued uses of the resources that go into producing and maintaining them.

In a lot of what we call "the third world", there are very beautiful villas, etc. but you'll never see them from the street precisely because they're tucked away where you cannot tell they are even there. Wealth avoids ostentation. And public spaces are left... to the public. Which means they are not well cared for. This is one reason why I think that the European conception of a city (in turn, influenced by the Greco/Roman conception) is actually the Goldilocksean "right-size" for government. The efficiency benefits of a certain amount of well-maintained public space are so obvious and the evidence shows that private arrangements not specifically organized to the purpose of creating such spaces - roads, parks, etc. - will generally not do so.

"ifany of the addresses in a transaction's past or future can be tied to an actual identity, it might be possible to work from that point and figure out who owns all of the other addresses."

Doesn't exactly sound like something people who are actually trying to be completely anonymous couldnt avoid.

And the example they give is ludicrous. It literally describes you having to purchase bitcoins on an exchange run by a malicious owner, and then having to use the same wallet to use those bitcoins to buy something from the same malicioius person's "trap" site.

Cuz when I'm concerned about anonymity I'm totally gonna go buy on some random exchange, and then go off and use the same wallet to spend those coins to some unknown merchant. What a crock.

And the rest is just as lame. They seriously describe Internet forum users somehow being able to "bully" other forum users into giving up transaction information, and then somehow spending all the time necessary to try and trace back and confirm what they know for sure and connect potentially hundreds, if not millions of dots...and for what? The chance they might be able to find out that some person held some bitcoins at some point? Even if they could prove that an account was owned by a certain person (i assume froma paypal exchange), they can't prove he was in control of the account after that. That's like the morons trying to sue the person who pays the ISP bill for copyright infringing behavior on his network. You can't prove who was on the computer.

"Oh that account? Yeah I had the code on a piece of paper in my wallet and I got mugged. That account's been out of my hands for a while."

This is my favorite part:

You might be thinking that this attack is not feasible. But consider this case:

You live in China and want to buy a "real" newspaper for Bitcoins.

You join the Bitcoin forum and use your address as a signature. Since you are very helpful, you manage to get 30 BTC after a few months.

Unfortunately, you choose poorly in who you buy the newspaper from: you've chosen a government agent! Maybe you are under the mistaken impression that Bitcoin is perfectly anonymous.

The government agent looks at the block chain and Googles (or Baidus) every address in it. He finds your address in your signature on the Bitcoin forum. You've left enough personal information in your posts to be identified, so you are now scheduled to be "reeducated".

You might as well have responded "completely anonymous? BAHAHAHAHA. What rubbish! What if you post your name and physical address right next to the single bitcoin address you use for every single transaction you make?! NOT so 'anonymous' is it, mister anonymous?"

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

And I think the most important thing is that people understand that rape happens in this way, and not in the jump-out-of-the-bushes stranger rape type of way, the majority of times. That, of course, happens, but the majority of rapes are this other way, this acquaintance, date-rape type of way. And we have to acknowledge that this is a real thing. This is not—this is not something that we can pretend doesn’t exist.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

Maxwell, who is a rape survivor, appeared on a Fox News segment with Sean Hannity last week about the possibility of arming women to prevent rape. She said the responsibility should lie instead with men.

she should know better, after all the man who was responsible for not raping her clearly abdicated that responsibility.

ZERLINA MAXWELL: Yes, but we can prevent rape by telling men not to commit it.

so am I to believe she didnt tell her rapist "no" or "stop" or "dont"? or what?

because statistically speaking most reported rapes are committed by someone who is known to the victim. so it defies the imagination that someone might have to defend themself against a sexual assault from an acquaintaince, for some equally unfathomable reason:

ZERLINAMAXWELL: Right. And this is one of the reasons why the gun conversation is completely ridiculous on its face in terms of prevention of rape, because most women are going to be in a situation where they know the person, right? So you’re not going to be out on a date or in your apartment with an acquaintance and have a gun out. That’s just not—I mean, if you—particularly because most guns, if you’re doing it the appropriate way, you’re going to lock it up and make sure that it’s not stolen or used by a child. And so, you’re not going to have your gun on hand any time something like this comes up. And I think the problem is, is that too many women, 80 percent of women, are raped by someone they know. And so, you’re not going to have the gun out.

Zerlina doesnt understand the "concealed" part of "concealed carry" which is awfully tragic.

also:

ZERLINA MAXWELL: Well, I mean, one of the things that was telling about the "evil" part of the segment was that rape, in many instances—and I think Steubenville is a perfect example of this. It’s not about evil, right? In Steubenville, those boys are very—fairly ordinary, right? They play football. They’re from a small Midwest town. They’re really ordinary. And it’s the conditioning they received as young men leading into their teenage years that led them to allegedly do this. And so, I think it has to do—I mean, the gun issue is just completely separate. And I think, in many ways, they’re exploiting women’s rights in order to promote just a pro-gun agenda. And I think that that’s wrong. And so, I just wanted to make that point clear in the segment.

she thinks those steubenville rapists are normal average dudes in every respect. theres more ridiculousity, just read the transcript.

It's interesting to think about what would come after anarchy - once we have achieved a stateless society...what then? It's like you were saying in your post, or at least saying to the effect of it, it's doubtful that human beings, having achieved an anarcho-capitalist world, would simply go to lounging around comfortably without any real reason to look for anything better. If society doesn't go downhill after that point (by which I mean going backwards, turning to what would then be reactionary viewpoints such as socialism, communism, etc) then what will come after that? What will human society evolve into without the state, an institution that has been present almost always throughout human history?